In his article, " ‘In Camera’ Interviews in Custody Cases: Reevaluating Due Process Concerns" (NYLJ, March 29), Lee Rosenberg contends that the presence of the child’s attorney (AFC) at an in camera interview, in which the court questions a child regarding his relationships with his parents, and his feelings regarding custody and visitation, places the attorney for the child at a strategic advantage in the custody litigation. In addition, Rosenberg at least implies that this situation provides the attorney with the opportunity to engage in an improper ex parte communication with the court. Neither assertion has any real basis in fact.
First, because the law provides that the child’s in camera testimony is to be sealed, with the exception of limited factual statements, upon which the court intends to rely, and which the parents have not previously had an opportunity to rebut or explain,1 the fact that the child’s attorney is privy to that testimony does not translate into any tactical or legal advantage, as she also is bound by that seal. Accordingly, she is not given a copy of the transcript, and is not permitted to speak of the contents of the child’s statements when subsequently advocating for the child’s position in open court or written submissions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
